Despite being conducted half a century ago, Stanley Milgram's studies of obedience to authority remain the most well-known, most controversial, and most important in social psychology. Yet in recent years, increased scrutiny has served to question the integrity of Milgram's research reports, the validity of his explanation of the phenomena he reported, and the broader relevance of his research to processes of collective harm-doing. We review these debates and argue that the main problem with received understandings of Milgram's work arises from seeing it as an exploration of obedience. Instead, we argue that it is better understood as providing insight into processes of engaged followership, in which people are prepared to harm others because they identify with their leaders' cause and believe their actions to be virtuous. We review evidence that supports this analysis and shows that it explains the behavior not only of Milgram's participants but also of his research assistants and of the textbook writers and teachers who continue to reproduce misleading accounts of his work.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


Literature Cited

  1. Almereyda M. dir 2015. Experimenter: The Stanley Milgram Story [motion picture] New York: Magnolia Pictures [Google Scholar]
  2. Alnabulsi H, Drury J. 2014. Social identification moderates the effect of crowd density on safety at the Hajj. PNAS 111:9091–96 [Google Scholar]
  3. Arendt H. 1963. Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil New York: Penguin
  4. Baumrind D. 1964. Some thoughts on ethics of research: after reading Milgram's “Behavioral study of obedience.”. Am. Psychol. 19:421–23 [Google Scholar]
  5. Baumrind D. 2015. When subjects become objects: the lies behind the Milgram legend. Theory Psychol 25:690–96 [Google Scholar]
  6. Benjamin LT Jr., Simpson JA. 2009. The power of the situation: the impact of Milgram's obedience studies on personality and social psychology. Am. Psychol. 64:12–19 [Google Scholar]
  7. Blass T. 2004. The Man Who Shocked the World: The Life and Legacy of Stanley Milgram New York: Basic Books
  8. Borge C. 2007. Basic instincts: the science of evil. ABC News Jan. 3. http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/story?id=2765416
  9. Bositis DA, Steinel D. 1987. A synoptic history and typology of experimental research in political science. Polit. Behav. 9:263–84 [Google Scholar]
  10. Brannigan A, Nicholson I, Cherry F. 2015a. Introduction to the special issue: unplugging the Milgram machine. Theory PsycholSpec. Iss. 25:551–63 [Google Scholar]
  11. Brannigan A, Nicholson I, Cherry F. 2015b. Unplugging the Milgram machine. Theory Psychol 25Spec. Iss. London: Sage [Google Scholar]
  12. Browning C. 1992. Ordinary Men: Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland London: Penguin
  13. Burger JM. 2009. Replicating Milgram: Would people still obey today. Am. Psychol. 64:1–11 [Google Scholar]
  14. Burger JM. 2014. Situational features in Milgram's experiment that kept his participants shocking. J. Soc. Issues 70:489–500 [Google Scholar]
  15. Burger JM, Girgis ZM, Manning CM. 2011. In their own words: explaining obedience to authority through an examination of participants' comments. Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci. 2:460–66 [Google Scholar]
  16. Cesarani D. 2004. Eichmann: His Life and Crimes London: Heinemann
  17. Chazan D. 2010. Row over “torture” on French TV. BBC News March 18. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8573755.stm
  18. Christophe N, Bornot T, Amado G, Blanc A-M. dirs 2010. Le Jeu de la Mort (Game of Death) [documentary] Paris: France 2 [Google Scholar]
  19. Cicero L, Pierro A, van Knippenberg D. 2007. Leader group prototypicality and job satisfaction: the moderating role of job stress and team identification. Group Dyn. Theory Res. Pract. 11:165–75 [Google Scholar]
  20. Cruwys T, Haslam SA, Dingle GA, Haslam C, Jetten J. 2014. Depression and social identity: an integrative review. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 8:215–38 [Google Scholar]
  21. Darley JM. 1995. Constructive and destructive obedience: a taxonomy of principal–agent relationships. J. Soc. Issues 51:125–54 [Google Scholar]
  22. Dawkins R. 2009. The God Delusion New York: Random House
  23. Doliński D, Grzyb T, Folwarczny M, Grzybała P, Krzyszycha K. et al. 2017. Would you deliver an electric shock in 2015? Obedience in the experimental paradigm developed by Stanley Milgram in the 50 years following the original studies. Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci. In press. doi: 10.1177/1948550617693060
  24. Ellemers N, De Gilder D, Haslam SA. 2004. Motivating individuals and groups at work: a social identity perspective on leadership and group performance. Acad. Manag. Rev. 29:459–78 [Google Scholar]
  25. Ellemers N, Haslam SA. 2012. Social identity theory. Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology P Van Lange, A Kruglanski, T Higgins 379–98 London: Sage [Google Scholar]
  26. Fenigstein A. 2015. Milgram's shock experiments and the Nazi perpetrators: a contrarian perspective on the role of obedience pressures during the Holocaust. Theory Psychol 25:581–98 [Google Scholar]
  27. Foddy M, Platow MJ, Yamagishi T. 2009. Group-based trust in strangers: the role of stereotypes and expectations. Psychol. Sci. 20:419–22 [Google Scholar]
  28. Fulbrook M. 2012. A Small Town near Auschwitz: Ordinary Nazis and the Holocaust Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  29. Gibson S. 2013a. Milgram's obedience experiments: a rhetorical analysis. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 52:290–309 [Google Scholar]
  30. Gibson S. 2013b. “The last possible resort”: a forgotten prod and the in situ standardization of Stanley Milgram's voice-feedback condition. Hist. Psychol. 16:177–94 [Google Scholar]
  31. Gibson S. 2014. Discourse, defiance and rationality: “knowledge work” in the “obedience” experiments. J. Soc. Issues 70:424–38 [Google Scholar]
  32. Gilbert SJ. 1981. Another look at the Milgram obedience studies: the role of a graduated series of shocks. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 7:690–95 [Google Scholar]
  33. Goldhagen DJ. 1996. Hitler's Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust London: Little, Brown
  34. Greenaway K, Wright R, Reynolds KJ, Willingham J, Haslam SA. 2015. Shared identity is key to effective communication. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 41:171–82 [Google Scholar]
  35. Griggs RA. 2017. Milgram's obedience study: a contentious classic reinterpreted. Teach. Psychol. 44:32–37 [Google Scholar]
  36. Griggs RA, Whitehead GI III. 2015a. Coverage of Milgram's obedience experiments in social psychology textbooks: Where have all the criticisms gone?. Teach. Psychol. 42:315–22 [Google Scholar]
  37. Griggs RA, Whitehead GI III. 2015b. Coverage of recent criticisms of Milgram's obedience experiments in introductory social psychology textbooks. Theory Psychol 25:564–80 [Google Scholar]
  38. Hansen R. 2014. Disobeying Hitler: German Resistance After Valkyrie New York: Oxford Univ. Press
  39. Hanson J. 2012. Ideology, Psychology, and Law Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  40. Harré R. 1979. Social Being: A Theory for Social Psychology Oxford, UK: Blackwell
  41. Haslam N, Loughnan S, Perry G. 2014. Meta-Milgram: an empirical synthesis of the obedience experiments. PLOS ONE 9:4e93927 [Google Scholar]
  42. Haslam SA. 2004. Psychology in Organizations: The Social Identity Approach London: Sage, 2nd ed..
  43. Haslam SA, Oakes PJ, Reynolds KJ, Turner JC. 1999. Social identity salience and the emergence of stereotype consensus. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 25:809–18 [Google Scholar]
  44. Haslam SA, Platow MJ. 2001. The link between leadership and followership: how affirming social identity translates vision into action. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 27:1469–79 [Google Scholar]
  45. Haslam SA, Reicher SD. 2007. Beyond the banality of evil: three dynamics of an interactionist social psychology of tyranny. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 33:615–22 [Google Scholar]
  46. Haslam SA, Reicher SD. 2012a. Contesting the “nature” of conformity: what Milgram and Zimbardo's studies really show. PLOS Biol 10:11e1001426 [Google Scholar]
  47. Haslam SA, Reicher SD. 2012b. When prisoners take over the prison: a social psychology of resistance. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 16:154–79 [Google Scholar]
  48. Haslam SA, Reicher SD, Birney ME. 2014. Nothing by mere authority: evidence that in an experimental analogue of the Milgram paradigm participants are motivated not by orders but by appeals to science. J. Soc. Issues 70:473–88 [Google Scholar]
  49. Haslam SA, Reicher SD, Birney ME. 2016b. Questioning authority: new perspectives on Milgram's “obedience” research and its implications for intergroup relations. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 11:6–9 [Google Scholar]
  50. Haslam SA, Reicher SD, Millard K. 2015a. Shock treatment: using immersive digital realism to restage and re-examine Milgram's “obedience to authority” research. PLOS ONE 10:3e109015 [Google Scholar]
  51. Haslam SA, Reicher SD, Millard K, McDonald R. 2015b. “Happy to have been of service”: the Yale archive as a window into the engaged followership of participants in Milgram's “obedience” experiments. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 54:55–83 [Google Scholar]
  52. Haslam SA, Reicher SD, Miller AG. 2015c. Milgram at 50: exploring the enduring relevance of psychology's most famous studies. J. Soc. Issues 70Spec. Iss. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley [Google Scholar]
  53. Haslam SA, Reicher SD, Platow MJ. 2011a. The New Psychology of Leadership: Identity, Influence and Power New York: Psychology
  54. Haslam SA, Reicher SD, Sutton J. 2011b. The shock of the old: reconnecting with Milgram's obedience studies, 50 years on. Psychologist 24:650–60 [Google Scholar]
  55. Helm C, Morelli M. 1979. Stanley Milgram and the obedience experiment: authority, legitimacy, and human action. Polit. Theory 7:321–46 [Google Scholar]
  56. Hogg MA. 2001. A social identity theory of leadership. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 5:184–200 [Google Scholar]
  57. Hogg MA, Turner JC. 1985. Interpersonal attraction, social identification and psychological group formation. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 15:51–66 [Google Scholar]
  58. Hollander MM. 2015. The repertoire of resistance: non-compliance with directives in Milgram's “obedience” experiments. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 54:425–44 [Google Scholar]
  59. Howe MJA. 2002. Genius Explained Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  60. Jetten J, Mols F. 2014. 50–50 hindsight: appreciating anew the contributions of Milgram's obedience experiments. J. Soc. Issues 70:587–602 [Google Scholar]
  61. Kershaw I. 1993. Working towards the Führer: reflections on the nature of the Hitler dictatorship. Contemp. Eur. Hist. 2:103–8 [Google Scholar]
  62. Koonz K. 2003. The Nazi Conscience New Haven, CT: Harvard Univ. Press
  63. Kuhn TS. 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
  64. Levine RM, Prosser A, Evans D, Reicher SD. 2005. Identity and emergency intervention: how social group membership and inclusiveness of group boundaries shapes helping behavior. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 31:443–53 [Google Scholar]
  65. Lozowick Y. 2002. Hitler's Bureaucrats: The Nazi Security Police and the Banality of Evil transl. H Watzman London: Continuum
  66. Lunt P. 2009. Stanley Milgram: Understanding Obedience and Its Implications Houndmills, UK: Palgrave Macmillan
  67. Lutsky N. 1995. When is “obedience” obedience? Conceptual and historical commentary. J. Soc. Issues 51:55–65 [Google Scholar]
  68. Mackie DM, Worth LT, Asuncion AG. 1990. Processing of persuasive in-group messages. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 58:812–22 [Google Scholar]
  69. Mandel DR. 1998. The obedience alibi: Milgram's account of the Holocaust reconsidered. Anal. Kritik 20:74–94 [Google Scholar]
  70. Mantell DM, Panzarella R. 1976. Obedience and responsibility. Br. J. Soc. Clin. Psychol. 15:239–45 [Google Scholar]
  71. Martens A, Kosloff S, Greenberg J, Landau MJ, Schmader T. 2007. Killing begets killing: evidence from a bug-killing paradigm that initial killing fuels subsequent killing. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 33:1251–64 [Google Scholar]
  72. Mastroianni GR. 2002. Milgram and the Holocaust: a reexamination. J. Theor. Philos. Psychol. 22:158–73 [Google Scholar]
  73. McDonough F. 2008. The Holocaust Houndmills, UK: Palgrave Macmillan
  74. McGarty C, Haslam SA, Hutchinson KJ, Turner JC. 1994. The effects of salient group memberships on persuasion. Small Group Res 25:267–93 [Google Scholar]
  75. Milgram S. 1963. Behavioral study of obedience. J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol. 67:371–78 [Google Scholar]
  76. Milgram S. 1964. Issues in the study of obedience: a reply to Baumrind. Am. Psychol. 19:848–52 [Google Scholar]
  77. Milgram S. dir 1965a. Obedience [motion picture] University Park, PA: Penn. State Univ. [Google Scholar]
  78. Milgram S. 1965b. Some conditions of obedience and disobedience to authority. Hum. Relat. 18:57–76 [Google Scholar]
  79. Milgram S. 1974. Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View New York: Harper & Row
  80. Millard K. 2011. The window in the laboratory: Stanley Milgram as filmmaker. Psychologist 24:658–60 [Google Scholar]
  81. Millard K. dir 2012. Random 8 [motion picture] Sydney: Charlie Prod.
  82. Millard K. 2014. Revisioning obedience: exploring the role of Milgram's skills as a film-maker in bringing his shocking narrative to life. J. Soc. Issues 70:439–55 [Google Scholar]
  83. Millard K. dir 2015. Shock Room [documentary] Sydney: Charlie Prod.
  84. Miller A. 1995. Constructions of the obedience experiments: a focus upon domains of relevance. J. Soc. Issues 51:33–53 [Google Scholar]
  85. Miller AG. 2004. What can the Milgram obedience experiments tell us about the Holocaust? Generalizing from the social psychology laboratory. The Social Psychology of Good and Evil AG Miller 193–239 New York: Guilford [Google Scholar]
  86. Miller AG. 2016. Why are the Milgram obedience experiments still so extraordinarily famous—and controversial?. The Social Psychology of Good and Evil AG Miller 185–223 New York: Guilford, 2nd ed.. [Google Scholar]
  87. Millward LJ, Postmes T. 2010. Who we are affects how we do: the financial benefits of organizational identification. Br. J. Manag. 21:327–39 [Google Scholar]
  88. Morton TA, Haslam SA, Postmes T, Ryan MK. 2006. We value what values us: the appeal of identity-affirming science. Polit. Psychol. 27:823–38 [Google Scholar]
  89. Navarick DJ. 2009. Reviving the Milgram obedience paradigm in the era of informed consent. Psychol. Rec. 59:155–70 [Google Scholar]
  90. Neitzel S, Welzer H. 2012. Soldaten—On Fighting, Killing and Dying: The Secret Second World War Tapes of German POWs New York: Simon & Schuster
  91. Neubacher F. 2006. How can it happen that horrendous state crimes are perpetrated? An overview of criminological theories. J. Int. Crim. Justice 4:787–99 [Google Scholar]
  92. Newman LS, Erber R. 2002. Understanding Genocide: The Social Psychology of the Holocaust New York: Oxford Univ. Press
  93. Nicholson I. 2011. Torture at Yale: experimental subjects, laboratory torment and the “rehabilitation” of Milgram's “obedience to authority.”. Theory Psychol 21:737–61 [Google Scholar]
  94. Nissani M. 1990. A cognitive reinterpretation of Stanley Milgram's observations on obedience to authority. Am. Psychol. 45:1384–85 [Google Scholar]
  95. Novelli D, Drury J, Reicher S. 2010. Come together: two studies concerning the impact of group relations on personal space. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 49:223–36 [Google Scholar]
  96. Oliner SP, Oliner PM. 1988. The Altruistic Personality: Rescuers of Jews in Nazi Europe New York: Free
  97. Oppenheimer M. 2015. Designing obedience in the lab: Milgram's shock simulator and human factors engineering. Theory Psychol 25:599–621 [Google Scholar]
  98. Overy R. 2014. Ordinary men, extraordinary circumstances: historians, social psychology, and the Holocaust. J. Soc. Issues 70:515–30 [Google Scholar]
  99. Packer DJ. 2008. Identifying systematic disobedience in Milgram's obedience experiments: a meta-analytic review. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 3:301–4 [Google Scholar]
  100. Perry G. 2013. Behind the Shock Machine: The Untold Story of the Notorious Milgram Psychology Experiments Brunswick, Austr.: Scribe
  101. Perry G. 2016. Seeing is believing: the role of the film Obedience in shaping perceptions of Milgram's obedience to authority experiments. Theory Psychol 25:622–38 [Google Scholar]
  102. Platow MJ, Hoar S, Reid SA, Harley K, Morrison D. 1997. Endorsement of distributively fair and unfair leaders in interpersonal and intergroup situations. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 27:465–94 [Google Scholar]
  103. Platow MJ, Mills D, Morrison D. 2000. The effects of social context, source fairness, and perceived self-source similarity on social influence: a self-categorisation analysis. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 30:69–81 [Google Scholar]
  104. Platow MJ, van Knippenberg D, Haslam SA, van Knippenberg B, Spears R. 2006. A special gift we bestow on you for being representative of us: considering leadership from a self-categorization perspective. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 45:303–20 [Google Scholar]
  105. Rees L. 1997. The Nazis: A Warning from History London: BBC Books
  106. Reicher SD, Haslam SA. 2011. After shock? Towards a social identity explanation of the Milgram “obedience” studies. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 50:163–69 [Google Scholar]
  107. Reicher SD, Haslam SA. 2012. Obedience: revisiting Milgram's obedience studies. Social Psychology: Revisiting the Classic Studies JR Smith, SA Haslam 106–25 London: Sage [Google Scholar]
  108. Reicher SD, Haslam SA. 2013. Obedience and tyranny in psychology and history. Social Psychology of Social Problems A Golec, A Cichocka 172–95 Houndmills, UK: Palgrave Macmillan [Google Scholar]
  109. Reicher SD, Haslam SA. 2015. Experimenter: a new film about Stanley Milgram relives the received wisdom on his experiments. Psychology Today Oct. 22. https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/sound-science-sound-policy/201510/experimenter
  110. Reicher SD, Haslam SA. 2016. Fueling terror: how extremists are made. Sci. Am. 24:34–29 [Google Scholar]
  111. Reicher SD, Haslam SA. 2017. The politics of hope: Donald Trump as an entrepreneur of identity. The Myth of Rational Politics: Understanding the Allure of Trumpism M Fitzduff 22–35 New York: Praeger [Google Scholar]
  112. Reicher SD, Haslam SA, Hopkins N. 2005. Social identity and the dynamics of leadership: leaders and followers as collaborative agents in the transformation of social reality. Leadersh. Q. 16:547–68 [Google Scholar]
  113. Reicher SD, Haslam SA, Miller AG. 2014. What makes a person a perpetrator? The intellectual, moral, and methodological arguments for revisiting Milgram's research on the influence of authority. J. Soc. Issues 70:393–408 [Google Scholar]
  114. Reicher SD, Haslam SA, Rath R. 2008. Making a virtue of evil: a five-step social identity model of the development of collective hate. Soc. Personal. Psychol. Compass 2:1313–44 [Google Scholar]
  115. Reicher SD, Haslam SA, Smith JR. 2012. Working toward the experimenter: reconceptualizing obedience within the Milgram paradigm as identification-based followership. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 7:315–24 [Google Scholar]
  116. Reicher SD, Hopkins N. 1996. Self-category constructions in political rhetoric: an analysis of Thatcher's and Kinnock's speeches concerning the British Miners' Strike (1984–5). Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 26:353–72 [Google Scholar]
  117. Reicher SD, Hopkins N. 2001. Self and Nation: Categorization, Contestation and Mobilisation London: Sage
  118. Reicher SD, Spears R, Haslam SA. 2010. The social identity approach in social psychology. Sage Identities Handbook MS Wetherell, CT Mohanty 45–62 London: Sage [Google Scholar]
  119. Reicher SD, Templeton A, Neville F, Ferrari L, Drury J. 2016. Core disgust is attenuated by ingroup relations. PNAS 113:2631–35 [Google Scholar]
  120. Rochat F, Blass T. 2014. Milgram's unpublished obedience variation and its historical relevance. J. Soc. Issues 70:456–72 [Google Scholar]
  121. Rochat F, Modigliani A. 1995. The ordinary quality of resistance: from Milgram's laboratory to the village of Le Chambon. J. Soc. Issues 51:195–210 [Google Scholar]
  122. Rochat F, Modigliani A. 1997. Authority: obedience, defiance, and identification in experimental and historical contexts. A New Outline of Social Psychology M Gold 235–46 Washington, DC: Am. Psychol. Assoc. [Google Scholar]
  123. Ross LD. 1988. Situationist perspectives on the obedience experiments. Contemp. Psychol. 33:101–4 [Google Scholar]
  124. Russell NJC. 2011. Milgram's obedience to authority experiments: origins and early evolution. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 50:146–62 [Google Scholar]
  125. Russell NJC. 2014a. Stanley Milgram's obedience to authority “relationship” condition: some methodological and theoretical implications. Soc. Sci. 3:194–214 [Google Scholar]
  126. Russell NJC. 2014b. The emergence of Milgram's bureaucratic machine. J. Soc. Issues 70:409–23 [Google Scholar]
  127. Russell NJC, Gregory RJ. 2011. Spinning an organizational “web of obligation”? Moral choice in Stanley Milgram's “Obedience to Authority” experiments. Am. Rev. Public Adm. 41:495–518 [Google Scholar]
  128. Slater M, Antley A, Davison A, Swapp D, Guger C. et al. 2006. A virtual reprise of the Stanley Milgram obedience experiments. PLOS ONE 1:e39 [Google Scholar]
  129. Smith JR, Haslam SA. 2012. Social Psychology: Revisiting the Classic Studies London: Sage
  130. Sofsky W. 1993. The Order of Terror: The Concentration Camp Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
  131. Sontag S. 2004. Regarding the torture of others. New York Times Mag May 23 25–28
  132. Stam HJ, Lubek I, Radtke HL. 1998. Repopulating social psychology texts: disembodied “subjects” and embodied subjectivity. Reconstructing the Psychological Subject: Bodies, Practices, and Technologies BM Bayer, J Shotter 153–86 London: Sage [Google Scholar]
  133. Stangneth B. 2014. Eichmann Before Jerusalem: The Unexamined Life of a Mass Murderer New York: Random House
  134. Steffens N, Haslam SA. 2013. Power through “us”: Leaders' use of we-referencing language predicts election victory. PLOS ONE 8:10e77952 [Google Scholar]
  135. Steffens N, Haslam SA, Jetten J, Mols F. 2016. Our followers are lions, theirs are sheep: how social identity shapes theories about followership and social influence. Polit. Psychol. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/pops.12387 [Crossref]
  136. Steffens N, Haslam SA, Reicher SD. 2014. Up close and personal: evidence that shared social identity is a basis for the “special” relationship that binds followers to leaders. Leadersh. Q. 25:296–313 [Google Scholar]
  137. Steffens NK, Peters K, Haslam SA, van Dick R. 2017. Dying for charisma: Leaders' inspirational appeal increases post-mortem. Leadersh. Q. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.09.001 [Crossref]
  138. Stott C. 2011. Replicating Milgram: rethinking the ethical and scientific issues Presented at Br. Psychol. Soc. Soc. Sect. Mtg., Sep 6–8 Cambridge, UK:
  139. Tajfel H, Flament C, Billig MG, Bundy RF. 1971. Social categorization and intergroup behaviour. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 1:149–77 [Google Scholar]
  140. Tajfel H, Turner JC. 1979. An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations WG Austin, S Worchel 33–47 Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole [Google Scholar]
  141. Takooshian H. 2000. How Stanley Milgram taught about obedience and social influence. Obedience to Authority: Current Perspectives on the Milgram Paradigm T Blass 9–24 Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum [Google Scholar]
  142. Turner JC. 1982. Towards a cognitive redefinition of the social group. Social Identity and Intergroup Relations H Tajfel 15–40 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  143. Turner JC. 1991. Social Influence Milton Keynes, UK: Open Univ.
  144. Turner JC, Haslam SA. 2001. Social identity, organizations and leadership. Groups at Work: Advances in Theory and Research ME Turner 25–65 Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum [Google Scholar]
  145. Turner JC, Hogg MA, Oakes PJ, Reicher SD, Wetherell MS. 1987. Rediscovering the Social Group: A Self-Categorization Theory Oxford, UK: Blackwell
  146. Turner JC, Oakes PJ, Haslam SA, McGarty CA. 1994. Self and collective: cognition and social context. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 20:454–63 [Google Scholar]
  147. Tyler TR. 2006. Why People Obey the Law Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
  148. Tyler TR, Blader S. 2000. Co-operation in Groups: Procedural Justice, Social Identity and Behavioral Engagement Philadelphia: Psychology
  149. van Knippenberg D, Lossie N, Wilke H. 1994. In-group prototypicality and persuasion: determinants of heuristic and systematic message processing. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 33:289–300 [Google Scholar]
  150. Vetlesen AJ. 2005. Evil and Human Agency: Understanding Collective Evildoing Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  151. Waller JC. 2001. Gentlemanly men of science: Sir Francis Galton and the professionalization of the British life-sciences. J. Hist. Biol. 34:83–114 [Google Scholar]
  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error